[CQ-Contest] Self Spotting

[ve4xt at mts.net]

Over the last several years, the Canadian government 
has spent billions of dollars creating the gun registry, 
believing that if all the guns in Canada are registered, 
gun-related crime will drop.

Hmm. Of course, the criminals in Canada  -- thugs, 
drug dealers, mobsters -- were lining up out the door to 
sign up...

I'm just wondering how removing packet from 
contesting will cut down cheating. Packet exists to 
service more than contesters, so there will still be 
spots to be had. It seems all this will do is just create a 
different brand of cheater. I can hardly believe that a 
cretin who thinks nothing of wrongly classifying himself 
as SO will have the slightest apprehension about 
continuing to use packet.

And, if honourable contesters can't watch packet, will 
they still spot? If they don't, then it diminishes packet for 
non-contesters -- who aren't bound by our rules unless 
they submit a log but use DX contests to pad award 
totals.

If we need to work more than just those submitting logs 
-- and we do -- and we make contests a less inviting 
place for those folk to do business, are we not simply 
diminishing contests for ourselves?

Perhaps once we figure out a way to remove packet 
from contests we could also figure out a way to 
de-invent the A-bomb...

73, kelly
ve4xt


> From: "k4ww" <k4ww at insightbb.com>
> Date: 2004/04/01 Thu AM 05:09:23 CST
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: [CQ-Contest] Self Spotting
> 
> "KU8E wrote:" The packet issue has been discussed 
for a long time and it
> seems to me that the majority favor removing it from 
contesting.  Now it's
> time for the contest
>  sponsors to react...."
> 
> Majority = a number greater than half of a total
> 
> If you think that more than half the participants in 
any/all contests favor
> removing packet assistance from contests, I fear you 
are sadly mistaken? If
> you think that more than half the participants, that 
participate in this
> reflector, are in favor of removing packet assistance 
from contests, I
> suspect you are correct? Fortunately, or unfortunately, 
depending on ones
> position, a very small portion of contest participants 
participate in this
> reflector, and are vocal about their opinions? The 
contest sponsors bear the
> responsibility of enforcing the rules? The participants 
bear the
> responsibility of complying with the "current" rules? 
The technology is
> available to insure that both are complied with?
> If "we" have arrived at the point where, "I have 
observed all competition
> rules as well as all regulations established for 
amateur radio in my
> country. My report is correct and true to the best of my 
knowledge. I agree
> to be bound by the decisions of the Awards 
Committee", means nothing, IMHO,
> "we" have reached a "sad state of affairs"?
> 
> C'Ya, Shelby
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>     The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
> THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on 
professional DVD and VHS!
>        http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
___________________________________________
____
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>